258 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

A good game does not automatically mean a good RPG, as I've stated before.

[TheGuv]

Terror_K wrote...

ME2's massive popularity just proves that the game has been made more mainstream and less for their old RPG fans. Halo, Gears of War and Modern Warfare 2 all had the same type of response and were massive hits. The biggest games aren't the best games... they're the most overhyped ones.

But I suppose that's the way the wind is blowing and BioWare want to catch the breeze. It's become more about money than actually creating something that's good. It's about appealing to the masses rather than appealing to the nerd culture.

What on earth are you whining about?

Look.  Mass Effect 1 was at its core a tactical shooter.  About 60% of my game time in Mass Effect was spent running down corridors from the future having ENEMIES EVERYWHERE barked at me eighteen times a minute.  No matter what RPG elements it had, it was a shooter anyway.  If you knew how to shoot and you could use cover well, you were better at the game.

However that element of the game wasn't brilliant.  Neither were the Mako exploration sections.  As fun as Commander Shepards Extreme Mako Mountain Climbing was, it wasn't a very polished segment of the game.  Did anyone get a thrill having found yet another UNC heavy metals deposit in amongst more easily killable Generic Pirates while bouncing around like a Volvo on a bungee cord?  I didn't.  If you did I think you're a bit wierd.

The fact is, everyone loved the actual RPG elements of ME1.  The story, the exploration, the character development, the weapon upgrades, and the basics of the shooter gameplay.  Very few liked the god awful inventory system or the obtuse way in which Shepard's character developed, nor the fact that the class design was overall pretty terrible.  So they went about improving everything that everyone found negative, and replaced the stuff they couldn't use.  That is not catering to an imaginary group of morons.  That is simply making their game more playable.

FPS fans have fairly refined tastes for what they consider a good shooter.  If they can consider ME2 a good shooter, than that is a success for Bioware because they will have done so at absolutely no expense to what made ME1 a good game.

A good game does not automatically mean a good RPG, as I've stated before.

The best RPGs I have played were all virtually the top of their field in terms of gameplay.  There is no better party combat game than Dragon Age Origins.  There is no better turn based shooter than Fallout 2, nor space trading game than Elite.

Having good gameplay goes hand in hand with being an RPG, otherwise you may as well play Dwarf Fortress or nethack.

Modifié par TheGuv, 27 janvier 2010 - 10:01 .

[Fraevar]

AudioEpics wrote...

I haven't read this whole thread but just wanted to throw in my two cents for those interested. As a European (a BELGIAN actually, how boring is that?), I haven't had the chance to play ME2 yet but I wonder: am I alone in this when I say that I'm very much an RPG fan who plays pen & paper RPGs and almost never plays any other genre in video games BUT I don't really care how "RPGish" ME2 is in terms of stats, inventory, loot and all that kind of stuff. All I want is great dialogue options to choose between, moral choices, party interaction, lots of quests both "main" and "side" and a good balance between these aspects and combat + exploration. That's all I care about and always has been. I only prefer RPGs over other genres because they are the only games that combine epic storytelling, dialogue options and social interaction with combat and exploration. I couldn't care less whether that's enough to call a game a "true RPG" or not because it's not the genre label that matters to me, just the experience of the game.
Does anyone else feel this way? And if so, if you have played ME2, do you like it?

The game does give you those things, albeit in it's "naked" form, the exploration bit feels a bit shorted, but the Hammerhead DLC should fix that. I got to try the game at a preview event and I have to say that while there is indeed more focus on combat, it's not just spamming it for no reason. Through your choices via dialogue, you do have the option to avoid certain fights, and you do get to choose how Shepard impacts the gameworld. And even with the focus on combat, there is a lot more to see and do than say, Modern Warfare 2 (a game which I personally loathe asides from one level) and it will not be over in 5 hours. The exploration elements of Mass Effect 2 are a carrot to give you extra stuff for Shepard and your team and this time there actually is a penalty at the end ( a *really big one*) if you just don't do any of that and play it as a linear shooter.

I hope that alleviates some concerns

[sinosleep]

Terror_K wrote...

A good game does not automatically mean a good RPG, as I've stated before.

When all the reviewers are treating it as an rpg, and giving it good ratings then yes actually it does.

[Fafner_Ni]

TheGuv wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

ME2's massive popularity just proves that the game has been made more mainstream and less for their old RPG fans. Halo, Gears of War and Modern Warfare 2 all had the same type of response and were massive hits. The biggest games aren't the best games... they're the most overhyped ones.

But I suppose that's the way the wind is blowing and BioWare want to catch the breeze. It's become more about money than actually creating something that's good. It's about appealing to the masses rather than appealing to the nerd culture.

What on earth are you whining about?

Look.  Mass Effect 1 was at its core a tactical shooter.  About 60% of my game time in Mass Effect was spent running down corridors from the future having ENEMIES EVERYWHERE barked at me eighteen times a minute.  No matter what RPG elements it had, it was a shooter anyway.  If you knew how to shoot and you could use cover well, you were better at the game.

However that element of the game wasn't brilliant.  Neither were the Mako exploration sections.  As fun as Commander Shepards Extreme Mako Mountain Climbing was, it wasn't a very polished segment of the game.  Did anyone get a thrill having found yet another UNC heavy metals deposit in amongst more easily killable Generic Pirates while bouncing around like a Volvo on a bungee cord?  I didn't.  If you did I think you're a bit wierd.

The fact is, everyone loved the actual RPG elements of ME1.  The story, the exploration, the character development, the weapon upgrades, and the basics of the shooter gameplay.  Very few liked the god awful inventory system or the obtuse way in which Shepard's character developed, nor the fact that the class design was overall pretty terrible.  So they went about improving everything that everyone found negative, and replaced the stuff they couldn't use.  That is not catering to an imaginary group of morons.  That is simply making their game more playable.

FPS fans have fairly refined tastes for what they consider a good shooter.  If they can consider ME2 a good shooter, than that is a success for Bioware because they will have done so at absolutely no expense to what made ME1 a good game.

A good game does not automatically mean a good RPG, as I've stated before.

The best RPGs I have played were all virtually the top of their field in terms of gameplay.  There is no better party combat game than Dragon Age Origins.  There is no better turn based shooter than Fallout 2, nor space trading game than Elite.

Having good gameplay goes hand in hand with being an RPG, otherwise you may as well play Dwarf Fortress or nethack.

QFTW.

[Terror_K]

Is Call of Duty 4 a "good RPG?" What about GTA IV? What about Team Fortress 2?



They're good games, but that doesn't mean they're "good RPG's"

[sinosleep]

Terror_K wrote...

Is Call of Duty 4 a "good RPG?" What about GTA IV? What about Team Fortress 2?

They're good games, but that doesn't mean they're "good RPG's"

Dear lord Terror K, now you're just being thick again. Only reason I'm even bothering to reply to you is cause I'm at work and bored out of my mind.

Common fracking sense would indicate I was talking about Mass Effect 2 sitting at 90+, being primarily reviewed as an rpg, and that combination of circumstances resulting in a "good game" being a "good rpg" by default.

[Fraevar]

At the risk of getting my head bitten off by either sino, Terror_K or both, I'd simply suggest that maybe it's time the RPG genre got a few subcategories? DA:O and Mass Effect 2 both have RPG elements, they're just not exactly the same, nor implemented in the same manner. So subcategories might be a good thing.

[sinosleep]

Pray tell how I've bitten anyone head off? Quotes please.

[Terror_K]

How do we know it's being "reviewed as an RPG" at all? How do we know they're not evaluating it as primarily a shooter? How do we know they're just considering a hybrid that is neither and both? How do we know they're considering it an interactive movie above all else?



Because most of the reviews I've read, despite the high scores, fully admit that the game is less an RPG than the first and more of a shooter. The thing is, these reviewers are all fans of multiple genres, and in many cases may prefer shooters to RPGs. They're evaluating the whole game as a game, and NOT primarily as an RPG.

[sinosleep]

Terror_K wrote...

How do we know it's being "reviewed as an RPG" at all? How do we know they're not evaluating it as primarily a shooter? How do we know they're just considering a hybrid that is neither and both? How do we know they're considering it an interactive movie above all else?

Because most of the reviews I've read, despite the high scores, fully admit that the game is less an RPG than the first and more of a shooter. The thing is, these reviewers are all fans of multiple genres, and in many cases may prefer shooters to RPGs. They're evaluating the whole game as a game, and NOT primarily as an RPG.

Gee I don't know, because 3/4 of all the reviews are talking about the story line, decision making, consequences, your crew, exploration, and other rpg heavy elements while spending the last 1/4 on the combat? Whereas in a review of say modern warfare 3/4 of the review is about the multi-player, the weapons, and the combat and the last 1/4 is about the story? It's blatantly obvious that they're looking at the game as an rpg.

[TheGuv]

Terror_K wrote...

Is Call of Duty 4 a "good RPG?" What about GTA IV? What about Team Fortress 2?

They're good games, but that doesn't mean they're "good RPG's"

The only thing GTA IV lacks is full character customisation and dialogue, but it has all the nonsense you class as "RPG" involved in it.  It's got undeveloped combat, inventory management, clothing customisation, pointless minigames, etcetcetc.

The other two are a spurious argument and show you're having trouble defending your position.  Which is no surprise since it is a ridiculous one.

Mass Effect 2 has not removed anything of consequence from the game.  It's removed an inventory management system that did nothing but annoy me the entire game with "INVENTORY FULL" which happened to be full of approximately 50 different sets of completely useless armour and weapons.  I picked up more weapon mods than an industrial armourer.  I could have started my own syndicate with the Normandy's supplies.  There was nothing interesting or thrilling about getting a new weapon/armour.  In most cases you could barely notice the difference.

Nor was the stat development particularly compelling.  It certainly had nothing on the old D&D games, and it had nothing on the far superior Dragon Age which had WoW talent trees (arguably the best character development model yet to exist in gaming).  I just maxed out my charm, maxed out whatever weapons I used the most and then got Immunity.  Nothing else.  There was no choice involved.  I wasn't deciding how my character developed any more than the game was.  It was a shooter, afterall.  My most effective form of combat is guns and having to fire inside a bloody big reticle is stupid.

I even noted someone saying you can't talk to party members on missions.  You couldn't anyway.  That was one of the first things I noted in ME1.  How anyone could have gotten through the game having imaginary conversations with squad members I do not know.

Lets look at the exploration segment.  I'm a physicist, right, so I enjoyed reading some of the guff on the planets I scanned but I can imagine someone who doesn't understand or pick holes in planetary ecology finding it interminably boring.  Yet the exploration segments were more notable for having the Mako climb vertical walls than anything of any real interest.  Another Matriach's writings?  Fantastic.  What about another dead Salarian and his stupid medal?  Oh look!  It's a tent on a world with unlivable acid rain where even my industrial strength military grade armour fails after four minutes...  Wait.  That made no sense at all.

And so on.

[Rhogog]

The sad thing about ME2 is not that it became a shooter. I mean there are not that many features added to the combat system if you look at it closely: body parts aiming, and... well, that's it. Covers? They were in ME1 too. Clips instead of cooldowns - oh, come on! Crosshair not shaking? Well, this is where we come to the *sad* part. RPG in my (sick and crazy maybe) imagination was always about few core things: story, stats and inventory. ME2 is mostly striped off the last two.



What was the reason for simplified character sheet? I'm not against modifying or changing things, I just don't want ME3 to end up with character having only one long "soldier/biotic/engineer" bar to improve making "this or that" decisions at key points.



What was the reason for removing inventory and loot? I like being buried under piles of junk, looking for that one special gun that will make me unstoppable. Thank you very much for adding heavy weapons but why not leave original weapons alone with an option to find alternatives and all those nice stats to compare and decide what's best for you? Modular armor is a nice addition but why only for me?



Party members not talking to each other at random is very sad. They made me smile on occasion instead of personal scheduled visits. New areas look very small in compare with the old ones.By "small" I mean the actual size of the area and sometimes overall feeling of massive space. Visiting citadel was very sad. Looking back at ME I can't say that long elevator rides was such a bad thing. Especially with Wrex.



Dear, Bioware, if you read this, please, don't cut sequels anymore, please add, please expand, please improve the existent things, but don't cut.

[Fraevar]

@sino: You just sound very...enthusiastic about this, so I'm just covering my bases.

Terror_K wrote...

How do we know it's being "reviewed as an RPG" at all? How do we know they're not evaluating it as primarily a shooter? How do we know they're just considering a hybrid that is neither and both? How do we know they're considering it an interactive movie above all else?

Because most of the reviews I've read, despite the high scores, fully admit that the game is less an RPG than the first and more of a shooter. The thing is, these reviewers are all fans of multiple genres, and in many cases may prefer shooters to RPGs. They're evaluating the whole game as a game, and NOT primarily as an RPG.

Reviews are always subjective, there's no way around it. The only way to ensure that what you read is somewhat in line with your own personal preferences would be to find a review from the classic RPG sites out there, rather than mainstream game sites.

I disagree with reviews all the time; Modern Warfare 2, Halo 2, Halo 3 - they all got stellar reviews and those games were a big pile of "bleh" to me. Over too quickly, weak narratives, repetative gameplay.

But the genre definitions are getting blurry these days, I'll admit that. Casey Hudson called ME2 a "shooter RPG" and that's basically what it is. Combat is a third person shooter with cover and team-tactic mechanics whereas the RPG elements would be the character customization, the dialogue option and the infrastructure around building and upgrading your team.

ME2's combat does follow one single formula, but fortunately BioWare has managed to avoid other pitfalls in their design process like the infamous "killbox" sections of levels made famous in Gears of War and Modern Warfare.

I think it will boil down to what it always boils down to with RPGs - whether or not the story and the characters make up for it, if you find yourself disliking the combat system. That's ultimately a choice each person has to make with ME2 and I'd definitely suggest trying before you buy, if you're on the fence.

[Archilochos]

ZilaSkye wrote...

and Archilochos (sp?) ... RPG folks are not in the minority .... we are the "MAJORITY"!!!! We apparently don't whine enough on forums however... which is the sad state of the universe... whine more ..type more = intellgience!... sounds like the illogic that got us the current President. >

In all honesty, I wish RPG folks were the majority, but it doesn't look that way based on the current single player market.  RPGers only count for a majority if we include MMOs, which are notoriously short on story and character/plot development.  Maybe the upcoming Bioware MMO will change this, but at the moment, MMORPGs don't really qualify.  80% of the games on my shelf are RPGs and turn-based strategy.  I wish there were more of both out there, but it just isn't so.

"Archilochos" is the transliteration of the original greek.  You're probably thinking of the latinized "Archilochus," which have been more recognizable, but I'm a classical studies purist.

ZilaSkye wrote...

RPG folks are the bread and butter ... and the future is RPG crowd ... twitch is just that .. twitch and is ADD based.... which means it lasts 5 sec ... and you can't base a business model on a crowd of folks with 5 sec attention spans ... please move along and stick to your console sports games (and military shooters) ... and leave the rest of the world that loves a good story and the journey from start to finish .. without the game or the mechanics gettin in the way of the "FUN"!

If you don't understand to which I speak... you need to cancel your Bioware account and move alont to the "free to play" games where "intelligience" and wisdom matters not! /waves good-bye to those now leaving!

People with short attention spans make for great business models - if you wait just a year or two, you can sell them the same game again with minor cosmetic changes!  That's why there are so many console sports games and military shooters.  Hell, I'm pretty sure the Medal of Honor series has been going on longer than the actual Second World War did, each one more less the same as the next.  (Which is why shooters only make up 10-15% of my games shelf - grab the innovative shooter from each generation, and there's no need to play the others.  And avoid all Halos and WWII shooters, of course).

What's always surprised me is that apparently no one's figured out how cheap it could be to market to the smaller, but more dedicated hardcore RPG crowd.  Same engine?  Same combat system?  Same art assets?  Not necessarily a problem if you've got new story, new characters, new dialogue.

[Fire2box]

ZilaSkye wrote...

  Do you not yet realize that the majority of players the "love" a game ... don't post!  just the whiners that have fracked up dozens of dev team design doc's over the years..as they know "Nada"! about what is fun and what isn'!!

GRRRRRR!
Enjoy!

So your saying only whiners post and they "frack up dev teams designs... and here you are.. posting.

Anyways its not that bad and the menu's feel a lot less clustered, don't forget the main things that make a RPG good is gameplay and stoeylines, and writing.. all of which Mass Effect 2 does pretty damn well. Even though its the first biggest game of 2010, I am willing to bet it may just be the best game of the year.

Bioshock 2 looks more of the same and only a excuse to give it a multiplayer game.

[Terror_K]

sinosleep wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

How do we know it's being "reviewed as an RPG" at all? How do we know they're not evaluating it as primarily a shooter? How do we know they're just considering a hybrid that is neither and both? How do we know they're considering it an interactive movie above all else?

Because most of the reviews I've read, despite the high scores, fully admit that the game is less an RPG than the first and more of a shooter. The thing is, these reviewers are all fans of multiple genres, and in many cases may prefer shooters to RPGs. They're evaluating the whole game as a game, and NOT primarily as an RPG.

Gee I don't know, because 3/4 of all the reviews are talking about the story line, decision making, consequences, your crew, exploration, and other rpg heavy elements while spending the last 1/4 on the combat? Whereas in a review of say modern warfare 3/4 of the review is about the multi-player, the weapons, and the combat and the last 1/4 is about the story? It's blatantly obvious that they're looking at the game as an rpg.

Everything you list there (that I've bolded) is something any story-driven game could have. These are not factors that, to me, define an RPG. Yes... most RPG's have these factors. But these aren't the primary factors I'm looking for when I want to see how deep and present the RPG system is in a game. You could have all those things and if you didn't spend a single point in any skill or level up at all you'd never even know.

[Mehow_pwn]

The only thing they need to add to the combat is bring back the exp from killing things.. it really was meaningful I mean that is what made the game so epicly enjoyable and diffrent from most fps today

Modifié par Mehow_pwn, 27 janvier 2010 - 10:38 .

[TuringPoint]

Insanityxiii wrote...

stfu deal with it

Could people cut this crap out?  Please?

Stop it with the ridiculous insults for people saying their opinion?

[TuringPoint]

That said, I don't think ME1 was a very good RPG, and it was very inadequate as a shooter.

[Mehow_pwn]

Alocormin wrote...

That said, I don't think ME1 was a very good RPG, and it was very inadequate as a shooter.

I disagree with you the fact that exp system and stats is far better than the ME2

[klossen4]

me1 was never a true RPG actually.

[sinosleep]

Rhogog wrote...
What was the reason for simplified character sheet? I'm not against modifying or changing things, I just don't want ME3 to end up with character having only one long "soldier/biotic/engineer" bar to improve making "this or that" decisions at key points.

IMO, stats based aiming on guy who is supposed to be a hardened special ops war hero just doesn't make any sense. I hated it in ME and I would have hated it in ME 2. As an army veteran in a non combat MOS I was able to hit a target from 300 meters with my m16, hit a target with my 203 grenade launcher attachment at a 100, toss a hand grenade at a target 50 meters away, and mow down a target at 300 meters with an m249 machine gun after 8 weeks of basic. I was able to keep up my skill with those weapons with only periodic training for the remainder of my 5 1/2 years in. But my special ops war hero had to pick and choose between four weapons, was only proficient with hand grenades by default, and generally had the aim of a half blind ferret? No, no, no, and no. Shepard doesn't have amnesia and he's not some random farmboy turned hero. He's had the training, stats shouldn't have anything to do with what armor he wears or what weapons he wields.

What was the reason for removing inventory and loot? I like being buried under piles of junk, looking for that one special gun that will make me unstoppable. Thank you very much for adding heavy weapons but why not leave original weapons alone with an option to find alternatives and all those nice stats to compare and decide what's best for you? Modular armor is a nice addition but why only for me?

I like loot as much as the next guy considering Diablo and Diablo II are two of my all time favorite games, but I don't like vendor trash. And the loot system in ME 1 was just a vendor trash system. Spectre gear was god and quite easy to attain early on considering I reach the money cap halfway through the game every playthrough (and you don't need to hit the money cap to deck out every sqadmate in spectre gear) so the loot was all just junk I didn't need to get money I didn't need either.

Party members not talking to each other at random is very sad. They made me smile on occasion instead of personal scheduled visits.

I agree with you on this. I LOVED the random conversations your party has in DA:O.

[TheGuv]

Terror_K wrote...

Everything you list there (that I've bolded) is something any story-driven game could have. These are not factors that, to me, define an RPG. Yes... most RPG's have these factors. But these aren't the primary factors I'm looking for when I want to see how deep and present the RPG system is in a game. You could have all those things and if you didn't spend a single point in any skill or level up at all you'd never even know.

No, a story driven game funnels you through the story like Half Life 2 did, giving you little to no choice in how you progress.  There are many, MANY inventory/stat driven games which are not RPGs.  We call those hack'n'slash games because although they love to call em RPGs, the only thing you do in them is pick a character class and stroll through the story.

The key difference between a story driven shooter like Half Life 2, hack'n'slash game like Diablo or the console Baldurs Gate, and a game like Dragon Age/Mass Effect 2 is what you do has massive effects on the story and how it turns out.  You pick not only a class, but a role in the story.  Are you going to be the neutral arbiter?  The knight in shining ceramics?  Or are you going to be an industrial strength ****?  Or maybe you play the nice guy with a set fuse after which he shoots you in the head.

You could play a game of Mass Effect 2 by insulting every last one of your squadmates continually regardless of circumstances.

None of those elements are present in non-RPGs.  The stat nonsense and inventory systems are present in plenty of games that are not roleplaying games, and thus cannot be used as an indicator.  For the same reason Fable was a roleplaying game, Mass Effect 2 is a roleplaying game.  Choice.

[Snowie79]

It's simple in my case ... Mass Effect >>> Mass Effect 2 ... will do a lot of thinking before going for ME3.